Dickens v. Taylor, et al

Filing 279

MEMORANDUM ORDER Granting 271 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law on Plaintiff's Request for Injunctive Relief filed by Tyson, Belanger, Gardels, Cunningham, Evans, Harvey, Rainey, Burton. Signed by Judge Leonard P. Stark on 5/24/13. (ntl)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

KEVIN L. DICKENS,
Plaintiff,
C. A. No. 04-201-LPS

v.
JOSEPH BELANGER, ET AL.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM ORDER
At Wilmington, this 24th day of May, 2013:
The Court having considered the parties' respective letters dated May 21, 2013 (D.I. 277;
D.I. 278), as well as Defendants' Rule 50 Motion on Plaintiffs Request for Injunctive Relief (the
"Motion") (D.I. 271), and Plaintiffs response thereto (D.I. 273);
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

Defendants' Motion (D.I. 271) is GRANTED.
a.

As set forth in the Final Pretrial Order, under the heading "VII. Damages,"

Plaintiff seeks permanent injunctive relief in the form of a restraining order against defendants,
as well as a transfer to another prison in Delaware. (See D.I. 234 at 38)
b.

In support of his request for equitable relief, counsel for Plaintiff stated

during argument on Defendants' Rule 40 Motion:
As to the equitable relief, I believe that there are some defendants
that are still present at the prison. Those defendants would still be
a danger to Mr. Dickens, and he is still pursuing the equitable relief
as to those defendants.

'
l

l
1

l

l

(Apr. 19,2013 Hr'g Tr. at 773-74 (D.I. 278 Ex. 3))
c.

When asked if "there [was] anything in the record" as of the close of

Plaintiffs case "from which [the Court] could find that some of the defendants are still present
where they would have the ability to potentially harm [Plaintiff], and therefore provide arguably
a basis for relief," Plaintiffs counsel responded in the negative. (See id. at 774)
d.

Subsequently, the jury determined that none of the Defendants had

violated Plaintiffs constitutional rights. (See D.l. 268) As Defendants point out, pursuant to the
Prison Litigation Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3626 (a)(l)(A), "[p]rospective relief in any civil
action with respect to prison conditions shall extend no further than necessary to correct the
violation of the Federal right of a particular plaintiff or plaintiffs" (emphasis added). Here, no

violation of a federal right has been demonstrated.
2.

The Court will enter a form of Judgment consistent with this Order and the verdict

rendered by the jury in this case. (D.I. 268) Such a form of Order has been proposed by
Defendants. (D.I. 276 Ex. 1)